Dravid’s bitter sweet saga with UDRS

Zeenews Sports Bureau

Chester-le-Street: The bitter sweet saga of Dravid and the decision review system (DRS) continued during the ODI series as well. In yet another controversial decision, Hot-Spot technology failed to register any nick when Dravid seemed to have edged Stuart Broad to keeper Prior during the first ODI at Durham, thus overturning the original decision. Third Umpire Marais Erasmus went with the noise and the original decision of on -field umpire Billy Doctrove was overturned. The repeated replays showed no signs of any nick on hot sport though a noise was evident. The original decision was not out given by Billy Doctrove which was challenged by Stuart Broad. The review went to third Umpire Marais Erasmus who overturned the decision without any conclusive evidence what so ever. Even Rahul Dravid looked perplexed with the verdict and the moment he went to the pavilion, he was seen with the Indian team’s video analyst and the expression was of disagreement. As has been the case with India, this has not been a good series for the technology as well. And if you ask Rahul Dravid about using DRS, he would now prefer to use the services of Geoff Boycott’s grandmother than using the technology. This is the third time in this tour that Dravid has been on the receiving end of this controversial technology. During the Test series, that too his final one in England, he was dubiously given out caught at silly point by Alastair Cook even when hot spot did not show anything. But umpire Steve Davis reckoned that the ball had deviated thus Dravid was out. He was given out caught-behind in the second innings owing to a referral made by the England side. This time around it was the snickometer which failed to register any edge yet the decision went against Dravid. The third Test match also had a similar incident when the ball hit the shoelaces of Dravid though that time Dravid himself had voluntarily walked. The inaccuracy of DRS is not only evident in this tour but on Friday Phil Hughes was not given out during the Sri Lanka –Australia series by the ball tracking technology when it was rather clear that the ball had spun enough on a very dry pitch to hit the stumps but the tracker just showed the ball going straight, missing the leg stump. During the World Cup game as well there was a big controversy regarding the 2.5 meter rule that had saved Ian Bell. So clearly flaws are there to see in the technology and even though there could be an argument of much fairer judgments. This series in a strange way has strengthen the BCCI’s stand of opposing the technology but the fact is that a lot of improvement can be done in the system before applying it in full strength. The supporters of this DRS technology advocate a full proof decision making system but the above mentioned examples are proof of the lack of ‘fool proof-ness’ of DRS technology. The main reason why these technologies fail at certain instances is because of the unpredictable nature of the game. A ball tracker predicts the path of the ball after hitting the pad, so a computerised path will not keep in mind the amount of spin or seam the ball might have later on. Similarly, the hot-spot is not able to pick up feather touches and to be frankly if it’s a prominent edge an umpire would know it immediately due to the deviation. It is during these feather touches that the umpire players get confused, and this is where the Hot-spot have to supposedly come in and clear the confusion. But so far the Hot-spot has just gone cold too often for anyone’s liking.